High Key Thread - FM Forums

Moderated by: guardian

Visit the FM Store · Image Upload · Buy & Sell
FM Forum Rules
Rules: One new topic per day

FM Forums | People Photography | Join Image Upload
1 2

4 end

tonyfield
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.3 #1 · High Key Thread

cgardner wrote:
A true high-key photo which has a very limited range of tones does a very poor job of leading the viewer to what is most important in the photo. The most effective photos on white backgrounds (i.e. a photo with a high-key background) will be those were the most important center of interests contrast strongly in color and dark tones.

This is contradiction in terms and therefor very misleading to the reader. In fact, high key and low keys images are specifically done to strongly lead the eye through the image by simple use of tonal contrast. There are obviously many strategies to "lead the viewer" through the image - high and low key are only two of the many possible image styles.

The "true high-key photo" has a full tone range with the very dominant light tones and has clear dark tones. This is as I described in the definition. As I described, it does a very GOOD job of leading the viewer to what is the visual attraction or centre of interest .

The general visual effect of the light tones is to present an emotional response - for example, one of delicate textures, light airy feelings, etc. This is the important artistic attribute of the image. The obvious visual attraction in the high key image is the darker tones which represent the contrast of the image. These become the visual centre of interest. This is clearly illustrated in my photograph of the young lady as well as the images presented by Nathan67 and BrittMcT.

The complimentary effect is achieved with low key - the light portions of the images attract the viewer's eye.

The tonality of the images and how the eye responds to the dark/light contrast is, I assumed, the obvious attributes of high and low key images.

May 15, 2008 at 09:38 PM

cgardner
Online
Image Upload: Off

p.3 #2 · High Key Thread

Tony,

No contradiction in terms, I just happen to disagree with your the definition of high key. I wouldn't consider a photo with ANY tone in it with a value over 128 middle gray to fit the strict definition of "high-key", while you seem to thing that a photo with a full-range of tone from 0 black to 255 white would qualify as "high-key" provided there were more light values that dark. That being the case you should be able to quantify on a percentage area basis for each tonal value what constitutes a "high-key" per your definition. Since you have anointed yourself judge and jury tell me if for example, of 1 % of the surface area of the photo are dark 0 - 50 RGB tonal values is the photo still a high key in your view? How about when 5%, 10%, 15%, 20% of the area of the photo are areas of dark detail where do you draw a quantifiable line where too much dark area disqualifies a photo as a "high" key?

My point however is that I don't get hung-up on"key" labels. We both seem to agree that contrast is what leads the eye and where the eye is lead on a white background is towards the things which contrast the most with the white background. In addition to tone color is a very strong attractive force on white which explains why flat lighting scenarios which create deep saturated skin-tones are quite effective for color shots on white backgrounds.

Chuck

May 15, 2008 at 10:16 PM

tonyfield
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.3 #3 · High Key Thread

Possibly, Chuck, you did not read my post. The statement was:

"The subject principle colours are very light and white (RGB values that approach 255 and virtually all tones above 128 for the three colours) tones. There are some detail shadows and mid tones."

It seems to me that my examples, and those good high-key images posted by Nathan67 and BrittMcT, have all tones from black to white withe a strong preponderance of "very light and white" tones. The histograms in my and Nathan67's image clearly show this as well. There is obviously no specific numbers in terms of percentages - I don't know why you would suggest such a thing.

You are the one who seems hung up on "key" labels. Yes, I certainly feel that people should understand common terminology. My only intent is to illustrate the nature of these terms and provide a reasonable and consistent definitions.

I do agree that you did not contradict yourself. However you stated that "A true high-key photo which has a very limited range of tones" is certainy incorrect for the most part, in particular it is at odds with my definition. Although it is reasonable to have a high key image with a restricted tone range however that is not a normal approach. In the same way, a low key portrait rarely will have a restricted tone range - look at the work of Yosuf Karsh.

As my description of the term indicates, there is usually a full tone range the the PREPONDERNACE of tones in the light to almost white range however some mid to dark tones to provide the visual focus.

Possibly you could provide the definition for "high key" and "low key" with examples to show why your definition is correct since part of the original intent of the thread to to come to grips with the meaning of "high key". It would also be interesting to show where my definition is inappropriate.

Edited on May 15, 2008 at 11:08 PM

May 15, 2008 at 11:08 PM

cgardner
Online
Image Upload: Off

p.3 #4 · High Key Thread

tonyfield wrote:

I do agree that you did not contradict yourself. However you stated that "A true high-key photo which has a very limited range of tones" is certainy incorrect for the most part, in particular it is at odds with my definition.

You keep saying I'm incorrect, based on the fact that I disagree with your definition. We simply have a disagreement over what would be considered I high key in a way which could be measured quantitatively. My criteria, no tone at all over 128 is quite simple to quantify and measure, which in part is why I think it is a better definition.

tonyfield wrote:
Although it is reasonable to have a high key image with a restricted tone range however that is not a normal approach. In the same way, a low key portrait rarely will have a restricted tone range - look at the work of Yosuf Karsh.

Exactly my point... The photographs people call high- or low-key aren't in the sense of having a limited range of tonality; e.g. polar bear sleeping in the snow or black cat sleeping in the shadows. Most photos are foreground subjects with a full range of tones on high-key-backgrounds or low-key-backgrounds.

tonyfield wrote:
As my description of the term indicates, there is usually a full tone range the the PREPONDERNACE of tones in the light to almost white range however some mid to dark tones to provide the visual focus.

Yes, but as I mentioned earlier that definition hinges on how the word "preponderance" or "predominance" is interpreted. The dictionary definition of predominance is, "the state or condition of being greater in number or amount." The words number and amount both signify something which can be quantifiably measured. Thus my unanswered request for you to quantity how much dark area a photo could have and still be considered a high-key in your view: 20%, 30%, or maybe 49% since that would still make the white background greater in amount.

tonyfield wrote:
Possibly you could provide the definition for "high key" and "low key" with examples to show why your definition is correct since part of the original intent of the thread to to come to grips with the meaning of "high key". It would also be interesting to show where my definition is inappropriate.

I did. I would consider a photo with no tone darker than 128 on a scale of 0 - 255 as being a true high-key photo overall and one with no tone lighter than 128 as being low-key.

High-Key Tonal Scale

Low-Key Tonal Scale

That's somewhat of a contemporary digital, quantifiable interpretation of the view that high- and low- key photos are defined by a narrow range of tones. Not unlike the treble and bass clefs in musical notation which I suspect is where the term "key" originated. So if you where to refer to a photo in a "high-key" it would contain notes in the upper register and if you were to refer to a photo in a "low-key" it would consist of only the lower register.

As mentioned I've learned to avoid the terms because they are subject to so much debate and disagreement. Someone calls their photo "high-key" and the thread devolves into a debate over the term. That's no tiresome or confusing enough, so someone feels the need to start a thread to debate it.

Most seem to understand and agree that the contrast if dark / colorful areas is the cause and effect dynamic which make photos effective in guiding the viewer to the focal point. All I'm suggesting is that if someone feels the need to label a photo using the term "high-key" they simply add the word "background" as in, "Here's my photo on a high-key background" which is usually a more accurate of the full-scale subjects on white background which typically get posted and called high-key.

Chuck

Edited on May 16, 2008 at 12:45 AM

May 16, 2008 at 12:27 AM

tonyfield
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.3 #5 · High Key Thread

Hummm. your definitions conflict with every printed references in texts I have read over the years and differs from the common understanding of most serious knowledgeable photographers I know. For example, the Ilford Manual of Photogaphy 1958 p 252 says:

"(b) The print should show the full range of tones between black and white that is capable of being produced on the paper used. (Even in high-key and low-key photographs it is usually desirable that the print should show some white and some black, however small these areas may be)."

I can find more and detailed references if I look through my archives of various photo manuals and yearbooks.

May 16, 2008 at 01:36 AM

Brent Ward
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.3 #6 · High Key Thread

It's one thing to argue about things with NO concrete definitions, but to argue with something that has had a set standard for decades is ridiculous.

Your dead wrong Chuck. You might as well be arguing that you disagree that 255 255 255 is white. Same difference.

May 16, 2008 at 02:25 AM

Todd Adamson
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.3 #7 · High Key Thread

I'd like to thank you all for making this my most successful FM thread ever.

May 16, 2008 at 02:39 AM

dmacmillan
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.3 #8 · High Key Thread

cgardner wrote:
That's somewhat of a contemporary digital, quantifiable interpretation of the view that high- and low- key photos are defined by a narrow range of tones. Not unlike the treble and bass clefs in musical notation which I suspect is where the term "key" originated. So if you where to refer to a photo in a "high-key" it would contain notes in the upper register and if you were to refer to a photo in a "low-key" it would consist of only the lower register.

Chuck

I see the angels are still dancing on the needle.

Since I've spent time in ensembles both as an orchestral musician and as a singer, I've read plenty of scores. It would be nice and neat if we could describe "light and airy" music as music with only notes on the treble cleff and "dark and moody" music as that with notes only on the treble cleff, just as it would be nice to describe photos as high key when the histogram show nothing below, say, 128 and low key not showing readings above 128. Things aren't that tidy in either case. I've played plenty of "dark" pieces where I was in fifth or even seventh position on the E string. Conversely, I've sung many a sweet, light song where I was at the bottom of my bass range.

In the end, what "style" we call a photo is not very important. You can call it "Fred" or "Ginger" or anything else, but if it doesn't move move me or touch me or interest me, it really doesn't matter.

The speakers for my home theater arrived yesterday. I bought them internet direct. I have 30 days to decide if they suit me, since I bought them sound unheard. I turned on my left brain and threw some music at them, I listened for some very specific technical characteristics. Did the designer do a good job with baffle step compensation when designing the crossover? Since it's a WTW configuration, is lobing a problem? After an hour or so of critical listening, I gave my left brain a rest. I put on a bunch of all sorts of music and just listened. I wanted to know, did the speakers sing to me? Did I hear speakers or did I hear music? When we get deep into these kind of discussions, I feel that we run the risk of seeing the image as a collection of technical elements executed more or less successfully instead of seeing a photograph created by someone who wanted to communicate a thought, feeling, emotion or just share something of beauty. Some images defy quantization, but can be enjoyed and appreciated nonetheless.

Doug

May 16, 2008 at 02:02 PM

Haldor
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.3 #9 · High Key Thread

My take :

May 16, 2008 at 06:13 PM

Brent Ward
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.3 #10 · High Key Thread

Haldor wrote:
My take :

This image is copyrighted by the owner

Yes.

May 16, 2008 at 06:47 PM

Brian Lingle
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.3 #11 · High Key Thread

So far, Nathan67's example is the only photo I've seen on FM that made me think high key is something special. Not that the other high key images aren't good examples of high key, they just didn't grab me enough to make me understand why people had such a big charge on the whole high key thing. I'm sure I've missed plenty of high key images posted here but, of the ones I have seen and the ardent discussions about them, I either felt like I didn't get it or I did get it but, so what? So, thank you, Nathan67, for the outstanding example. Beautiful!

Edited on May 16, 2008 at 07:43 PM

May 16, 2008 at 07:41 PM

Brent Ward
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.3 #12 · High Key Thread

Just because a photo is technically a high key doesn't automagically make it a great photo...

May 17, 2008 at 05:02 PM

Nathan67
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.3 #13 · High Key Thread

Brian Lingle wrote:
So far, Nathan67's example is the only photo I've seen on FM that made me think high key is something special. Not that the other high key images aren't good examples of high key, they just didn't grab me enough to make me understand why people had such a big charge on the whole high key thing. I'm sure I've missed plenty of high key images posted here but, of the ones I have seen and the ardent discussions about them, I either felt like I didn't get it or I did get it but, so what? So, thank you, Nathan67, for the outstanding example. Beautiful!

Thankyou for the compliment...

The web image does not really do it justice.. I have a 40x60cm print in my studio window and the customer was very pleased too... (which is the most important thing for me.. and the customer doesn't have a clue what high key is...)

Regards, Nathan

May 17, 2008 at 09:33 PM

GPirnat
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.3 #14 · High Key Thread

High key, yes?

2008 © GPirnat

May 18, 2008 at 06:31 PM

liamh
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.3 #15 · High Key Thread

GPirnat wrote:
High key, yes?

No. It's bright, but not high-key. Still, if you like it, that's all that matters

May 18, 2008 at 06:33 PM

GPirnat
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.3 #16 · High Key Thread

High key, yes? (Thanks for indulging me and the feedback.)

2008 © GPirnat

May 18, 2008 at 06:45 PM

tonyfield
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.3 #17 · High Key Thread

GPirnat wrote:
High key, yes? (Thanks for indulging me and the feedback.)

Still not "high key" - too many dark tones in the hair and sweater - and the obvious problem of blown out highlights. If you re-crop this image to essentially only the face, a small bit of hair, etc, keeping the dominant tones in the very light areas it could work well as a high
key. Look at the image histogram - it should be strongly pressed to the right (high tones). Also take a close look at the overall tonality of BrittMcT's image of his son (on the first page of this thread).

May 18, 2008 at 07:26 PM

liamh
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.3 #18 · High Key Thread

tonyfield wrote: If you re-crop this image to essentially only the face, a small bit of hair, etc, keeping the dominant tones in the very light areas it could work well as a high
key.

Do you mean like this

May 18, 2008 at 07:34 PM

caleb condit
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.3 #19 · High Key Thread

Wow, so I think this is kinda confusing for some people. High key just means that the majority of the areas of an image are really lit. Doesn´t mean that black doesn´t exist in high key photos. That´s just silly. It means the photo depends on lots of information rather than less information. It´s harder to get more details right and normally requires 2 or more lights to do it well. That´s why it´s revered by some.

old white guy

This image is copyrighted by the owner

young black guy. (I only have quick reference to the final product...)

You see black people can be in high key too. I think it works actually better with darker skin because of the fact that you can use stronger, harsher lights with one soft light and get amazing results. I´d say 90% of the ads shot of people of color have high key light or something verging on high key. Look at nike ads. Most of that stuff is really high key light and is used on darker skin athletes all the time.

Edited on May 18, 2008 at 08:59 PM

May 18, 2008 at 08:55 PM

tonyfield
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.3 #20 · High Key Thread

caleb condit wrote:
Wow, so I think this is kinda confusing for some people. High key just means that the majority of the areas of an image are really lit.

You see black people can be in high key too..

Your concept of "really lit" is far from the truth of photographic "high key" - it follows more along concepts used for tv and film. Please read the definitions I provided near the beginning of this thread.

Neither of the images are what should be called "high key". The first image of the man is IMO a strongly cross-lit person on a hot white background. The second images is very similar - a hot white background (aside from the added graphics) with a close to normal rendition of the face.

A hot white background does NOT mean the picture is a high key picture.

As Brian Lingle stated earlier in this thread:

"There is no reason to be troubled over the fact that a portrait with a hot white background and medium key subject is not a high key photo, unless you're overly attached to the connotation conveyed by the term, high key."

Edited on May 19, 2008 at 05:23 AM

May 19, 2008 at 05:16 AM

tonyfield
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.3 #21 · High Key Thread

liamh wrote:
tonyfield wrote: If you re-crop this image to essentially only the face, a small bit of hair, etc, keeping the dominant tones in the very light areas it could work well as a high
key.

Do you mean like this

Yup: Like that!. Lovely shot of the pussy! I certainly think this image follows the style of high key. With that in mind, as a subjective observation, I think this image could be curve-adjusted to retain the quality of (or even darken) the eyes but make the white cat hair much lighter. Possibly a large radius USM would add to the local contrast as well. These would reduce the muddiness in the fir and have a lighter more airy feel to the overall presentation.

Edited on May 19, 2008 at 05:56 AM

May 19, 2008 at 05:53 AM

billsol
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.3 #22 · High Key Thread

How about this one. I am learning a lot from this thread thanks for all the great info.

This image is copyrighted by the owner

Prehaps the darker colors in the bathing suit keep this from being high key.

May 19, 2008 at 01:41 PM

caleb condit
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.3 #23 · High Key Thread

Your concept of "really lit" is far from the truth of photographic "high key" - it follows more along concepts used for tv and film. Please read the definitions I provided near the beginning of this thread.

ok, so the first had only two lights, but had a white wall close in front acting as a big reflector, but the third was a traditional 3 light setup. Sure, I left some contrast. But high key is more about a setup that requires not to be changed every few seconds than being overlit...

Oh and I would care less about what you label my work, I just think you´re wrong. Not taking it personal...

Edited on May 19, 2008 at 10:18 PM

May 19, 2008 at 10:17 PM

dmward
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.3 #24 · High Key Thread

Low key images need to have highlights, just not many. High key images need to have blacks, just not many.

High key implies that the preponderance of the histogram will be to the extreme right without any clipping other than specular highlights.

Low key implies that the preponderance of the histogram will be to the extreme left without any clipping other than detail-less shadow.

For my eye, high key and low key evoke a mode in the image. Decomposing the image for high-keyness or low-keyness may be something I do but it is after I respond to the image as a statement from the photographer.

One Man's View
David

Edited on May 20, 2008 at 12:32 AM

May 20, 2008 at 12:31 AM

Brent Ward
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.3 #25 · High Key Thread

caleb condit wrote:
Your concept of "really lit" is far from the truth of photographic "high key" - it follows more along concepts used for tv and film. Please read the definitions I provided near the beginning of this thread.

ok, so the first had only two lights, but had a white wall close in front acting as a big reflector, but the third was a traditional 3 light setup. Sure, I left some contrast. But high key is more about a setup that requires not to be changed every few seconds than being overlit...

Oh and I would care less about what you label my work, I just think you´re wrong. Not taking it personal...

Your getting high key film confused with high key portrait terminology.

Neither one of your shots posted are high key.

Edited on May 20, 2008 at 03:03 AM

May 20, 2008 at 03:02 AM


FM Forums \| People Photography \| Join Image Upload 1 2 3 4 end